Exactly. Prohibition puts people into prisons (another word for treatment), where they are rehabilitated in a drug-free environment and emerge productive members of society. This is obvious because
Any statistics on success rate and cost of treatments?
It is hard enough to treat alcohol addiction, and that makes people feel awful. I am skeptical about broadly treating opiate addiction, which surely makes people feel much better than being high on alcohol.
I am not necessarily arguing for treatment. Drug addiction is a very serious chronic disease, so treatment would be a better choice than enablement. However, I do agree that success rate of treatment must be pretty low.
This makes sense. “Treatment works” is not an argument for treatment, it may in fact not work very well. Nonetheless we must focus solely on prohibition because treatment either does or does not work to an acceptable degree and criminalization obviously increases the amount and/or efficacy of treatment
I acknowledge that treatment works and decriminalization of (highly addictive hard) drugs does not. I don't necessarily advocate for treatment because we already spend too much money on this problem.
This makes sense. Treatment works but isn’t quite worth advocating for because it is too expensive, as compared to the cost of policing and incarcerating people, which municipalities pay nothing for
